About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 25
LANGUAGE
English 25
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
having u.s. ambassadors killed in the future. that's it. >> okay. >>> coming up, warren buffett will be here onset. also senate majority whip dick durban. jake tapper and celebrity chef tom colicchio. >> those are all great. but now, unfortunately, we've got to wait for our good guests to come on. >> we're going to lose everyone. >> up next, jim vandehei joins us here onset. >> the clicking of channel changers across america. jim, we love you! come over here! >> bill karins -- oh, no, speaking of -- >> what? >> we call him c.g. for -- >> no, we don't. >> c.g., what do we got? >> now i've got to think of something creative for what c.g. stands for. snow is falling in a few areas this morning, we're looking at new jersey, looks like the suburbs outside philadelphia and new york could see snow. getting ready to treat a lot of those roads. a lot of that eco friendly rock salt. let's show you what's happening on the radar, the pink is where it's a little bit of a mix and the green is the rain. we've set up the boundary line somewhere north of philadelphia and just north of new york c
me. >> coming up, warren buffett exposes the dirty little money secret of fellow rich guys, rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly and big news. chris christie is running and later, think about this. who is more christ like? the brave defender of christmas or the actor writer director, is bill o'reilly or ricky gervais more christlike? tweet us your answer and it will be in tonight's rewrite. let's see if we can get one past the defense. hut! go! here it comes! right on the numbers! boom! get it! spin! oh, nice hands! chest bump. ugh! good job, man. nice! okay, halftime. now, this is my favorite play. oh! i'm wide open. oh, fumble. fumble. don't want to fumble any of these. [ male announcer ] share what you love, with who you love. kellogg's frosted flakes. it's up... and it's good! good?! they're grrreat! with his wife, danielle, almost every weekend. derrell hasn't been able to visit his mom back east in a long time. [ shirley ] things are sometimes a little tight around the house. i wasn't able to go to the wedding. [ emily jo ] since derrell couldn't get home, we decided to bring ho
. >> thank you very much for joining me. >> coming up, warren buffett exposes the dirty little money secret of fellow rich guys, rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly and big news. chris christie is running and later, think about this. who is more christ like? the brave defender of christmas or the actor writer director, is bill o'reilly or ricky gervais more christlike? tweet us your answer and it will be in tonight's rewrite. [ emily jo ] derrell comes into starbucks with his wife, danielle, almost every weekend. derrell hasn't been able to visit his mom back east in a long time. [ shirley ] things are sometimes a little tight around the house. i wasn't able to go to the wedding. [ emily jo ] since derrell couldn't get home, we decided to bring home to him and then just gave him a little bit of help finding his way. ♪ [ laughs ] [ applause ] i love you. i love you, too. sven gets great rewards for his small business! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put the
, raising the marginal tax rate on the top end is spur purely a symbolic t. and the reason warren buffett is able to say, well, my secretary is taxed at a higher rate than i am is not because of that rate, it's because of the capital gains rate at 15%. >> we need to ask him about that, too. and i'm sure he would agree capital gains rates, which were about 28% under bill clinton when we had the roaring '90s, are at 15% right now. i've got to say, this is one of those areas where, when i was in congress, i wanted the capital gains rate to go down, thought it was too high at 28%. it's at 15% now. if you want to look at income disparity, you know, in part, the 15% capital gains tax rate and carried interest allows the super wealthy to get by paying a hell of a lot less than middle-class americans. >> if you're for fairness, that's where the fairness is. that's why the rich don't pay as much tax as the others. the marginal tax rate is marginal. if you raise it a couple of percentage points, it doesn't change much. if you raise that capital gains rate, that's where the big money is made. >> he
, warren buffett, the op-ed in the "new york times" and we all know in the past he said he personally would welcome a tax hike. >> right. >> here is a snippet from this morning. forget about the rich and ultra rich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattress if gas, capital gains rates, and ordinary income rates are increased, the ultra rich including me will forever pursue investment opportunities. where is the room for the gop to continue to argue against taxing the rich at a higher rate. >> there really isn't for a whole host of reasons not the least of which is politically speaking it doesn't make sense. the study you talked about at the beginning, here is what a lot of people don't realize. for many americans the way they do christmas, they take out a loan. that's how they pay for christmas presents hoping the tax return that they get back, the money they get back from the taxes will be able to pay off that loan. that's how a lot of americans are living their lives. i think the republicans have got to recognize they can no longer not party that is going to defen
. but if you're a long-term investor -- remember, warren buffett is very bullish on u.s. stocks because he believes in company. this could be a buying opportunity because things have drop add lot. >> well, stephanie, speaking of warren buffett hr, he had an op, sort of laying the idea that the've wealthy would throw a hissy fit, would not invest if they were to increase a couple of points. he wrote, so let's forget about the rich and ultra rich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if, gasp, capital gaines rates and yord nan income rates are increased. the ultra rich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities. why is there such a hang-up even to the point that republicans have signals willingness to find revenue in other places as lodge as they do not actually increase the rates? >> i think the hang-up is broader than that. and what mr. buffet is asking for simplicity. as far as investors go, they simply want things to be resolved because again unless there's clarity in the future, you're just not going to see much happening. as i mentioned
with the president over the weekend. the white house's pr campaign is being buoyed along by warren buffett who is voicing support for tax hikes for americans just like him. >> i think it would have a great effect in terms of the morale of the middle class who have seen themselves paying high payroll taxes, income taxes and then watched guys like me end up paying a rate that's below that, you know, paid by the people in my office. >> joining me now is wisconsin's republican senator ron johnson. senator, it's great to have you with us this morning. and as we talk about what's taking place in washington, d.c. right now, the million dollar question is all concerns around senators lindsey graham, saxby chambliss, congressman peter king among other republicans who said they'd be willing to break away from grover norquist's anti-tax pledge. will you say if you're willing to break that pledge in order to save the country from the fiscal cliff. >> hello, thomas. and first of all, i signed that pledge two years ago, and the reason i signed it is because i think increasing tax rates, increasing the amoun
think of warren buffett's proposal for a minimum income tax on high earners for people who are now paying so much less, paying what mitt romney paid, paying what warren buffett pays, 14 or 16%, because of capital gains and other investments, what about a minimum tax that would require them to pay 35%? >> the president has supported the buffet principle for a long time and his state of the union address last year, he supported buffet rule which would set a minimum tax for those who are the most wealthy. but we have a set of problems we need to address. and this requires a comprehensive solution and most importantly, we need to collect additional revenue from the most fortunate which includes raising tax rates to where they were during the clinton years. >> similarly, what about revisiting simpson-bowles? a lot of people are talking about the framework, a lot of work has been done, are there means testing, further means testing of medicare, for instance, or other kinds of delayed medicare enactment, you know, sliding the age, for instance, kicks in other ways to try to down the road
. >> good morning. >> we've laid out some of the basics there and warren buffett was out this morning talking about taxing the wealthy. he says there should be a minimum tax on millionaires. take a listen. >> i think it would have a great effect in terms of the morale of the middle class who have seen themselves paying high payroll taxes, income taxes, and then they've watched guys like me end up paying a rate that's below that, you know, paid by the people in my office. >> you know, he was the one that in a way started all this, susan, because he talked about he shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. now he's saying that taxes should rise, maybe for people making over $500,000 a year. a lot of republicans loved him for his business sense, but have they stopped listening to him now? >> well, and of course, if you raise the minimum tax on millionaires, i think americans would be all for that. the trouble is, it doesn't really raise you enough money, not the kind of money we're talking about. and even going down to $500,000, the reason that the level's been set at $250,000 p
't resolved before january. meanwhile, in "the new york times," warren buffett takes a dig at norquist and others while making his case for a minimum tax on the wealthy. the oracle of omaha writes, "let's forget about the rich and the ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if -- gasp -- capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased." >>> after weeks of criticism over u.n. ambassador susan rice, senator john mccain who vowed to block her potential nomination as secretary of state appears to be backing off that threat. >> she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position, just as she said. >>> actor ben affleck has long been involved in efforts to help the victims of war-torn eastern congo. on sunday he talked about his call for the u.s. to take a more active role. >> i think our actions in foreign policy, and maybe i'm naive, represent our values and represent who we are. and if any american were to go to that country and stand and
, i think warren buffett also suggested to raise it to $500,000, not $250,000. so that could be more palatable, too, to upper middle class people. they'll get a break up to $500,000. but it's very hard once you hit the million-dollar bracket to say, oh, no, no, we're going fro text those people. clearly these republicans are seeing the same poll numbers that obama is seeing, that this is not where the american people are right now. >> it's interesting you bring up the poll numbers. keith, let me bring you in on these. we know a exit poll combines. our first read team points out a republican pollster david winston says 61% say the better way to raise revenue is closing loopholes and reforming the tax code and they're seeing some republicans look at that particular poll over the one we've ma jorlly talked about, which is the exit polling. >> i wonder if these are the same republican pollsters who said romney is going to win in a landslide. >> touche, touche. >> you have to take this with grain of salt. the reality is the american people knew what barack obama was running for when he wa
people like warren buffett are willing to do that. it seems to me that's the price of admissions. if the only thing they mean when they say deficit reduction is cutting entitlements. it's about cutting entitlements. >> the same guys at the trough for a bailout are now experts on what we ought to do with entitlement programs in this country. i find that amazing. then mr. blankfine throws a scenario. people don't have 25-year careers. they have 40-year careers. and construction people when they get in their early 50s and worked for 30 years, their bodies are broken down. >> exactly. >> what are they supposed to do? hang around for another 15 until medicaid shows up? they are paying lip service. it's romney 2.0. that's all it is. so what should liberals in this country be prepared to accept at this point as you see it? >> i really think that we should go back to the clinton rates, which are still lower than they should be. that's where we ought to start. if people want to talk about tax reform, let them get specific. because there are certain forms of so-called tax reform that could
is that revenue going to come from? >> increasing tax rates is going to harm economic growth. >> warren buffett was out this morning talking about tacking the wealthy. >> time to make the tax rates more progressive. >> that's just silly. >> grover norquist, he wanted ground government in the bathtub. i hope he slips in there with it. >> medicaid, social security. >> this is not part of the conversation. we're not going to raid social security. just another fight in washington. >> there's going to be blood and hair and eyeballs all over the floor. >> i'm more positive than most. >> if not, we go off the supposed cliff. >> the fiscal cliff or slope. the bump of various height. >>> thelma and louise might need to make room in the car for the president of the united states. at the white house today, senior obama administration officials met with liberal leaders and union officials. "the washington post" reports that one told him after the meeting, quote, would the white house go off the cliff if it's between that and compromising their core principles? i was left with the impression that they would
had warren buffett on the show yesterday. warren buffett said raising the top marginal tax rate to 39.6% wouldn't catch any of the top income earners in america. that it would not impact them at all. now why shouldn't republicans be focusing on that, the real political battle in washington today, instead of focusing on a battle they know they're going to lose, against a woman of color after they just got shellacked in the polls among people of color and females. why are they doing this? and, andrea, a bigger question, as we go to a new congress, is john mccain going to continue to have the disproportionate impact that he has on foreign policy in the republican senate caucus? mika and i talked to so many people over the past two, three years that say we want, republican senators, we want out of afghanistan but, you know what, we just sort of stay out of john's way. how many times have we heard that? >> a lot. it's disturbing. >> we hear it all the time. they stay out of his way. are they going to blindly follow and, again, i love and respect senator mccain, but i don't want my party to
very much. >>> al sharpton, here is the issue. warren buffett saying this week to the president effectively, my words, not his, don't give in here. don't give in on taxes. threaten to go over the fiscal cliff. it's not going to kill the economy any worse. how does the president work his will here? how does he get to the kind of compromise that david cody wants and other ceos, while still saying i've won this election and i need to drive things in the direction i think is best? >> i think he's got to govern by the commitments made during the campaign. and i think he will. this is about fairness. why do we need to deal with the tax on the rich first? because we must assure americans we are dealing with fairness. we keep talking about shared sacrifice. there was not shared wealth and shared prosperity. so you're asking people that didn't enjoy the good times to share in paying for the tab that they never enjoyed. so i think that when we first deal with the taxes, as you raised in your first point, and then go from there talking about how we deal with entitlements and all, you have
at the end of the year. and in today's "new york times" warren buffett calls for a, quote, minimum tax for the wealthy writing let's not forget about the rich and ultra rich going on strike. capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. the ultra rich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities. buffett calls for the cutoff point to increase from $250,000 to $500,000, by the way. defensem democrats are facing pressure from interest groups who oppose changes to medicare and social security like this one from the aarp. >> some politicians think medicare and social security are just numbers in a budget. well, we worked hard for those benefits. we earned them. and if washington tries to cram decisions about the future of these programs into a last-minute budget teal, we'll all pay the price. >> and there's your potential pressure from the left. gop negotiators have put adjusting the measure of inflation which determines social security benefits back on the table, something the president had agreed to in 2011. majority leader harry reid has ruled that out this
on that point. do the markets care when you see the ceos and some of the wealthier people, including warren buffett today in the "times" saying, look, we have got to raise revenues by raising some taxes on wealthy individuals. we saw that from both buffet and radner, very prom negligent well-known financiers but ultimately endorsing what sounds like the obama position. do the markets look to those steps the way we do in politics and say this is more likely to get done or does it not work that way? >> look, the market is hanging on every single development in these negotiations. a couple of days ago leaders came out of the white house and said they had a pretty conciliatory meeting and everything seemed hunky dory at least in that one meeting and the market boomed. people are watching and waiting to see what's happened here. you've got a split on wall street. there are those folks who don't want to see tax increases no matter what under any circumstances ever. and then you have other folks like lloyd blankfein who said they don't mind tax increases on the wealthy as long as it helps us to ge
officials will behave like spoiled children, and warren buffett took the gop to school today, quote, let's forget about the rich and ultra rich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if, gasp, capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. the ultra rich, including me, says mr. buffett, will forever pursue investment opportunities. so he's calling for a minimum tax on millionaires and billionaires. will republicans listen? >> well, it's a sensible way. if we're going to have a deal, we will have to see some kind of compromise. a minimum tax on people making over $1 million a year can generate a half it trillion in a ten-year scale. if you include deductions you don't necessarily have to go to 39%. you can go to 37% if you are looking for compromise. but i think there's a bigger issue here as well, and that is the idea this is a slightly critical towards the democrats, the biggest issue that this country faces right now is getting us back to 4% economic growth, 3% or 4% economic growth and seeing wages increase right now. this whole idea that d
could reach in the middle. i think that's a huge concern. in fact, this morning we spoke with warren buffett about this very issue. he thinks there's a real chance we will get some sort of a deal but maybe not necessarily by december 31st. he thinks the middle of the party could work out a deal. they will go kicking and screaming and if the leadership feels they will lose their leadership position, that could make them drag their heels as well and not get a deal as quickly. if we go over december 31st, we'll see what happens with the markets at that point. >> dow 8,000. becky quick, sorry. thank you. >> reporter: thank you. >> up next, are republicans and conservatives on the verge of a breakup? >>> the republican party needs conservatives but do conservatives need the republican party? today we're taking a deep dive into where the two overlap and where they don't. go back to this past spring, just a month or so after mitt romney secured the nomination. author and veteran craig shirley wrote something that caught a lot of our eyes saying the party itself had about become nothing more
in the world. as warren buffett has been saying for the last 24 hours, are you really going to turn down a good investment opportunity just because the tax rates are a little higher in we're talking about a minor 4 percentage point increase in the upper end of the tax rate here. it's not life or death. you know, cutting the deficit and raising taxes, if they can't agree, which congress has shown themselves inability to agree. if they're not going to agree, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world for tax rates to go up and for the deficit to be cut. i think that could result in a big economic boom. >> wow. >> and then, let's say two weeks after we go over the cliff, after the 1st of january, they then cut attacks for everybody -- >> but here's the problem with that notion. it's not fine. but, john, it's not fine because a lot of ordinary middle class people -- >> that's the problem. >> -- are trying to spend money at christmas and they're deeply anxious about what's going to happen in january. and these people don't appear to have any regard for the fact that the majority of americans agree
warren buffett are willing to do, some high income people. it seems to me that's the price of admissions. if the only thing they mean when they say deficit reduction is cutting entitlements, that's not about deficit reduction. it's about cutting entitlements. >> the same guys that are at the trough for a bailout are now experts what we ought to do with entitlement programs in this country. i find that amazing. then mr. blankfein, he throws out a scenario which is totally unrealistic. people don't have 25-year careers. they have 40-year careers is what they have. and construction people when they get in their early 50s and they've worked for 30 years, their bodies are broken down. >> exactly. >> what are they supposed to do? hang around for another 15 till medicare and medicaid show up? they're not even living in the real world. going after entitlements is basically paying lip service to the right wing. it's just romney 2.0. that's all it is. so what should liberals in this country be prepared to accept at this point as you see it? >> well, i really think that we should go back to the cli
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)